Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.
Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.
Health and Wellness
CBO: Repubs' "Alternative" Health-Care Plan Would Leave 52 Million Uninsured in 2019
Posted by Ben Armbruster, Think Progress on November 5, 2009 at 7:22 AM.
Last night, the Congressional Budget Office released its analysis of the House Republican alternative health care bill. While the CBO determined the GOP bill’s 10 year price tag to be $61 billion — far less that the Democrats’ proposal — the score also found that the their bill would have little effect on nearly 46 million uninsured Americans:
By 2019, CBO and JCT estimate, the number of nonelderly people without health insurance would be reduced by about 3 million relative to current law, leaving about 52 million nonelderly residents uninsured. The share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance coverage in 2019 would be about 83 percent, roughly in line with the current share. CBO and JCT estimate that enacting the amendment’s insurance coverage provisions would increase deficits by $8 billion over the 2010–2019 period.
The CBO found that the Democrats’ bill, however, would cover 36 million more Americans and “reduce the number of nonelderly Americans without coverage to around 18 million over the next decade.” Yet, just before the CBO scored the GOP bill, a spokesperson for House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) falsely claimed their alternative “will cover millions more Americans” than the Democrats’ bill.
Last night on Fox News Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) dodged a question about how many uninsured the GOP plan would cover and instead railed at the Democrats for “trying to get at this business of universal coverage”:
PENCE: We believe you get at the coverage issue by lowering the cost of health insurance. … So Republicans by focusing on the cost of health insurance believe that we are going to take our country in a direction where we also deal with the tens of millions of people and employers that struggle with providing insurance.
Boehner's Lame Excuse About Why the GOP Health Care Bill Sucks So Badly
Posted by mcjoan, Daily Kos on November 4, 2009 at 3:55 PM.
Yesterday, hours after the House Republicans healthcare "reform" plan was released and universally mocked, Rep. Boehner cried foul, insisting that this unauthorized leak was of a draft bill that wasn't finalized and hadn't been seen by members.
Just a quick reminder of the reaction in the media to Boehner's bill. Here's what the original WSJ article reported:
A House Republican health-care bill wouldn't seek to prevent health-insurance companies from denying sick people insurance, Minority Leader John Boehner said Monday.
And here's Roll Call:
Under the GOP plan, insurance companies would still be allowed to exclude anyone with a pre-existing medical condition from coverage, there would be no national insurance exchange and businesses would not face any mandate to provide insurance nor individuals to buy it. Boehner also left out tax credits to help the poor and middle class buy insurance — a central pillar of most GOP reform proposals and a key feature of a four-page outline Republican leaders released in June.
But that bill, says Boehner and Pence, wasn't the real bill, as reported by The Hill:
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
Iowa Wingnut Steve King Lauds Lobbyists as American Heros for Bussing in Health Reform Protesters
Posted by Lee Fang, Think Progress on November 4, 2009 at 2:46 PM.
On Thursday, the lobbyist-run groups Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks — which were instrumental in orchestrating dozens of anti-Obama tea parties and town hall disruptions — are planning an anti-health reform rally at the steps of the Capitol. Republican leadership, like Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), have endorsed the rally. But two of the most rabidly right-wing members of Congress, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) are amongst the most aggressive promoters of the rally, with the help of talk radio and Fox News.
FreedomWorks has launched a website called “DontKillGrandma.com” listing recommended tactics for activists to engage in while protesting health reform. For the Thursday rally, FreedomWorks says activists should engage in a “simultaneous chant of ‘Kill the Bill.’” FreedomWorks is funded by corporate money and is led by Dick Armey, the former Republican Majority Leader and until recently lobbyist from DLA Piper.
Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is busing people to the rally. AFP is led by astroturf lobbyist Tim Phillips and is bankrolled by gas and oil baron David Koch, the world’s 9th richest person and the financier of dozens of conservative think-tanks, publications, and politicians. Like they did for the April tea parties, AFP has commissioned at least 10 buses from Maryland, New Jersey, and North Carolina to bring protesters — free of charge — to DC for the rally.
During a speech last night, King thanked the lobbyists for bringing in buses from “state after state after state.”
[Ed: Watch it in the window to your right.]
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
Joe Lieberman In a Thong? New "Strip Joe" Game Allows You to See the Awful Truth
Posted by Adele Stan, AlterNet on November 4, 2009 at 12:45 PM.
Have you had enough of Sen. Joe Lieberman, and his on-again, off again threat to stop health-care reform legislation from coming to a vote? The folks at Agit-Prop have teamed up with CREDO to give you a way to let off some steam, even as you send a message to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to get tough with the Joester.
Called "Strip Joe," an animated online game allows you to wield a gavel with your cursor at various anatomical parts of the senator from the state of Aetna; wherever you land your gavel on the senator, he loses that piece of clothing. If you like what you see when you win, you can purchase your very own "GOP string" to add to your lingerie chest. (Made in USA!)
These are hijinks with a purpose, though. The game site allows viewers to sign on to a petition to Harry Reid that demands, "If Lieberman joins a GOP filibuster of the health care bill, strip him of his chairmanship." Lieberman chairs the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
Now, where did I leave my gavel?
Joe Lieberman: Swine Flu is Either with Us or the Terrorists!
Posted by Steve M., No More Mister Nice Blog on November 3, 2009 at 5:42 AM.
I wish the exact quote were available, but for now we have this from Michael Goldfarb at The Weekly Standard's blog:
... a source who was present at the scene reports:
In the stakeout after Face the Nation, Joe Lieberman excoriated the decision to give the vaccine to GITMO terrorists and not to pregnant women.
Really, Joe? Best you can do?
Yeah, we're giving swine flu vaccine to Guantanamo prisoners.
Can't think of a reason why, Joe? I won't even bother bringing up the Geneva Conventions, or our military's long tradition of humane treatment of prisoners -- I know you don't believe in any of that crap, Joe.
Still can't come up with a reason? Here, I'll give you a big fat hint:
Who's guarding Gitmo prisoners?
Right: our troops.
I know you think the prisoners are subhuman scum, vile worms who can't be compared to decent human beings on any level whatsoever. But guess what, Joe?
Viruses don't give a crap.
A virus can easily spread from your scum to our brave youth. Vaccinating these prisoners is a way of protecting our men and women in uniform.
Hey, Joe, why do you hate the troops?
GOP Loon Goes Off the Rails: Health Reform Greater Threat than Terrorism
Posted by Faiz Shakir, Think Progress on November 2, 2009 at 11:12 AM.
Few Republican congressional members have served as a greater fount for hyperbolic and uninformed ranting about health care reform as has Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC). As ThinkProgress previously documented, Foxx has claimed Democratic reforms would mean seniors are “put to death by their government,” that health reform is a “distraction,” and that “there are no Americans who don’t have health care.” She was at it again today on the House floor, arguing that health reform is a greater threat to our country than “any terrorist right now in any country”:
Everywhere I go in my district, people tell me they are frightened. … I share that fear, and I believe they should be fearful. And I believe the greatest fear that we all should have to our freedom comes from this room — this very room — and what may happen later this week in terms of a tax increase bill masquerading as a health care bill. I believe we have more to fear from the potential of that bill passing than we do from any terrorist right now in any country.
McCain Adviser Who Attacked Dems' Health Reform Now Facing Insurance Nightmare
Posted by Igor Volsky, Think Progress on November 2, 2009 at 8:35 AM.
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a senior policy adviser to Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) presidential campaign, “remains unemployed — and his COBRA health coverage is running out,” the Washington Post reports. “Irony of ironies, it gets worse. Holtz-Eakin, who is about to start shopping for insurance on the individual market, is 51. And he has one of those pesky ‘preexisting conditions’ that insurance companies often cite in denying coverage”:
Holtz-Eakin said he’s been paying about $1,000 a month to extend the private health insurance he received on McCain’s campaign through the government’s COBRA program, but that will expire in a few months. This is the first time in his life he has not had employer-provided health coverage. “I worry about where I go next in the way many Americans do,” he said.
During the campaign, Holtiz-Eakin fervently defended McCain’s proposal to shift more Americans out of their employer-sponsored coverage and into the individual health insurance market. “The key to real reform is to restore control over our health-care system to the patients themselves,” Holtz-Eakin said in August. “Instead of only getting it in the employer market, you would get it regardless of your source of insurance. And you get the same amount whether you’re rich or poor, $5,000 for every working family.”
50 Things Restaurant Servers Should Never Do
Posted by Tara Lohan, AlterNet on October 30, 2009 at 3:00 PM.
The New York Times has a blog post up now (part 1 of "100 Things") that outlines the best etiquette for restaurant employees. And no, this is not a 'remember to wash your hands' or 'don't spit in the food' kind of list -- it's a bit above that. Having worked only briefly in food service at one of my first jobs, I have to say that being a great server is really hard and I definitely notice and appreciate immensely when it is done well.
I agree with just about everything on the list except for number 6: "Do not lead the witness with, 'Bottled water or just tap?' Both are fine. Remain neutral." Actually, unless you are some place where the tap water is not drinkable, then I'd say, ditch the bottled water, like so many high-end (and other) restaurants are starting to do. It's better for the environment and often is actually better quality water, too.
Here's one of my favorites from the list: "If someone likes a wine, steam the label off the bottle and give it to the guest with the bill. It has the year, the vintner, the importer, etc." I've never seen that done before, but I'd be super impressed!
Here's a couple more good ones:
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
NC Blue Cross Blue Shield Customers Asked By Company to Oppose Public Option -- After Hiking Premiums 11%
Posted by Adele Stan, AlterNet on October 29, 2009 at 8:00 AM.
In a brazen act of hubris, Blue Cross & Blue Shield has sent letters to all of its customers, asking them to send a pre-printed, postage-paid postcard to Democratic Senator Kay Hagan, that urges her to oppose any health-care reform that contains a public option. (The state's other senator, Richard Burr, is a Republican, so Blue Cross already has his "no" vote in their pocket.) And all this after notifying subscribers of a hefty premium hike.
As reported by the Raleigh News & Observer, the letter reads:
"No matter what you call it, if the federal government intervenes in the private health insurance market, it's a slippery slope to a single-payer system. Who wants that?"
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
Pelosi to Go With Not-So-Robust Public Option
Posted by John Nichols, The Nation on October 28, 2009 at 10:35 PM.
The public option was always a compromise for serious supporters of health-care reform, who -- like Barack Obama when he was running for the Senate in 2003 -- knew that a single-payer "Medicare for All" system was what America needed to provide health care to everyone while controlling costs.
But, in the reform legislation that will be debuted Thursday by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the compromise will be even more compromised.
According to The New York Times:
Under pressure from moderate-to-conservative members of the House Democratic caucus, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has decided to propose a government-run insurance plan that would negotiate rates with doctors and hospitals, rather than using prices set by the government, aides said Wednesday.Ms. Pelosi said the public plan, which she prefers to call a "consumer option," would compete with private insurers. But the speaker was apparently unable to muster the votes needed for the "robust" liberal version of a public plan, which she has repeatedly said would save more money for consumers and the government.
Translation: The "public option" Pelosi and her team will not make payments based on Medicare rates. It will, instead, be forced to negotiate rates with doctors and hospitals, as private insurers do. That weakens the flexibility and muscle of the public option.
Pelosi's plan also drops a number of provisions that had been advanced at the committee level to promote consideration of "Medicare for All" models and to allow states to experiment with single-payer plans.
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
House Leadership Deciding Now on Public Option
Posted by mcjoan, Daily Kos on October 28, 2009 at 4:56 PM.
House Leadership met this afternoon to make the decision on the merged bill that will be the one they take to the floor. An announcement on their decision is scheduled for tomorrow morning at 10:00 eastern, but we'll probably be hearing leaks any time now.
What we'll probably hear is that the public option will be based on negotiated rates, rather than the robust public option based on Medicare rates plus 5% that the progressive caucus has been supporting. I say probably, because the whip count on this has been all over the place. Yesterday, Greg Sargent raised some panic over a whip list showing that the robust public option didn't have the votes. However, that list is now being disputed by its source, Majority Whip Clyburn [update, to be clear, Clyburn's staffer, Kristie Greco, didn't publicly dispute the numbers Greg reported].
The names on the list do raise questions. For example, Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.) is listed as a no. But Altmire says he's told leadership that he's fine with a Medicare-based public option. He opposes the bill as it stands because of cost and because it includes an income surtax.
Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.) is listed as "leaning no," even though she and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) co-authored an op-ed earlier this month supporting the "robust" option. It was titled, "Why We're Breaking With the Blue Dogs on the Public Option."
It's been a completely moving target, which is why you haven't seen any whip lists for calls appearing in the blogosphere. It's just not been at all clear who we should be calling. Which is how it works when you get down to the last handful of people on a bill of this magnitude. Some are just constitutionally opposed to being nailed down on a position and some are trying for their own quid pro quo and want to keep a negotiating position open.
The numbers are so close on these votes, House leadership is in a bind of trying to figure out exactly what could pass.
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
Centrist Democrats = Corporate Sellouts
Posted by Ari Berman, The Nation on October 28, 2009 at 1:45 PM.
Every time I hear about Joe Lieberman's latest apostasy, I think, Oy vey! There he goes again. More Joementum.
Remind me why we still call this guy a Democrat? Sure, Lieberman caucuses with Democrats in the Senate--Joe is nothing if not opportunistic and who wants to be part of a lowly Republican minority?--but I think he forfeited his right to call himself one when he almost became John McCain's VP and campaigned stridently against an Obama presidency. Yet somehow he managed to keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Gotta love those Senate Democrats--they always find a way to reward someone for stabbing them in the back. See Baucus, Max.
Following Lieberman's threat to filibuster a public option, every paper played up the story of how the "centrists" are now rebelling. Watch out, the centrists are coming! "Centrists unsure about Reid's public option," the Washington Post reported today. Let's get real. These holdouts are not centrist Democrats; they are corporate Democrats, which should be an oxymoron. They'll do whatever the healthcare industry wants and use their red state constituents as an excuse to do so. Only Lieberman is from Connecticut, one of the bluest states in the country. So what's his excuse?
Well, some rather large insurance companies reside in Connecticut and, as Joe Conason points out, Lieberman's wife just so happens to have been a drug industry lobbyist for Hill & Knowlton. Conason reports:
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form
Is Joe Lieberman Bluffing, or Would He Really Torpedo Health-Care Reform?
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on October 28, 2009 at 10:19 AM.
OK, the Dems had a choice of strategies to get around an inevitable GOP-led filibuster of any health-care bill with a public option.
The bill they have in the House has a public option. They could have gotten a really watered-down bill without the measure through the Senate, used the popular momentum for a public choice to add it during the the reconciliation process (in which the House and Senate bills are combined) and then done a full-court press to pass the final product.
Most Congressional observers doubt that the handful of cantankerous Democrats in the Senate who might join a filibuster of the Senate bill the first time around would have the nerve to block the legislation if it came back from the reconciliation process with some compromise public plan. Which would have left the insurance caucus Dems -- Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Evan Bayh, Blanche Lincoln and other sell-outs -- out of the limelight.
But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid promised to deliver a bill with some form of public insurance option. That moves the process along significantly and, as The Hill reports, may help progressives in the House get a "robust" version of the scheme through the lower chamber, as the details of their bill get ironed out. (See Booman for more on the process stuff.)
But because Reid doesn't have the votes so far to bring his bill to a vote -- and may not even have enough to begin debate on its provisions -- it's a high-risk move, in large part because it empowers so-called "moderate" Senate show-boats like Joe Lieberman, who promptly announced that he would likely join a Republican filibuster of the reform package. Whatever else he believes, Lieberman's all about the attention and he's got an abundance of it right now.
At this time, I'd like to just remind readers that when progressives backed Ned Lamont in the primary against Lieberman in 2006, Harry Reid came to his defense by swearing that Old Joe was "with us on everything but the war" in Iraq.
Anyway, sour grapes aside, the buzz today is about whether Lieberman can be moved. Is he being cantankerous now to puff up his own chest and make the liberals who had the chutzpah to beat him in a Democratic primary chafe but will eventually come around? Or is he really prepared to almost single-handedly blow up the whole year-long legislative process during its final act if he doesn't get his way?
A sampling of what some smart observers are saying about that question after the jump ...
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
Sen. Lieberman May Try to Stop Public Option By Joining With GOP Filibuster
Posted by Adele Stan, AlterNet on October 27, 2009 at 12:32 PM.
It's hard to remember this sometimes: Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, the former vice presidential candidate, was once a standard bearer for the Democratic Party. Today he put himself forward as the potential killer of the Democrats' signature piece of legislation: health-care reform.
Since leaving the party in 2006 when he failed to garner the support of party leaders for his re-election bid (his unqualified support for the Iraq was was the big issue), Lieberman has consistently moved further to the right, even working the rope lines on behalf of Republican presidential candidate John McCain. Yet Lieberman, an independent, has continued to caucus with the Democrats, a move that allowed him to retain his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security Committee.
Brian Beutler of TPM reports that Lieberman is now threatening to join with Republicans should they launch an expected filibuster that would keep the health-care proposal announced yesterday by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid from getting a final vote on the Senate floor. At issue for Lieberman is Reid's decision to include a public option in the bill.
Harry Reid has the power to strip Lieberman of his chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and one hopes that threat will be brought to bear on him. However, it may just not matter. Clearly, Lieberman needs to be made to feel important, and he may be looking for a reason to move completely to the GOP side, once and for all. Stripping him of his chairmanship would likely give him the impetus to do so.
Why does this matter? Because it takes 60 votes to close down a filibuster, and with Lieberman and fellow independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont (fellow in only independent status; Sanders is a socialist) in the Democratic caucus, the Dems have exactly the magic number. If Lieberman high-tails it out of the Dem caucus for good, there's no 60 to hold the line on climate change or financial reform or net neutrality. It's a nasty little game the Lieberman is playing.
Progressives and Public Option: This Is How Democracy Is Supposed To Work
Posted by Bill Scher, Campaign for America's Future on October 27, 2009 at 8:00 AM.
Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced he would submit a health care reform bill with a national public option that states could choose not to join.
This is how democracy is supposed to work. The highest ranking member of Senate was able to hear the will of America's progressive majority over the din of the insurance lobby and the right-wing noise machine, and was responsive to the majority.
But that's mere idealism. From a practical standpoint, this is how the modern progressive movement is supposed to work.
In 1993, there was no significant progressive movement putting positive pressure on the Clinton Administration. Many naively assumed having a Democratic president and Congress was enough, the hard work was done, and we could kick back with a Crystal Pepsi and let democracy work its magic.
We learned the conservative minority had many tricks up its sleeve, and was able to smear and fear to death any attempt at major progressive reform.
The election of a uniquely compelling figure in President Barack Obama threatened to bring back some of that complacency. A false notion persists in some corners that the President should be able "ram through" any legislation he likes.
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
EMAIL
PRINT
2 COMMENTS
PERMALINK
